Belichick purposely allowed DEN to run on us Sunday night

[supafly]

I could be wrong, but I don't think that is a quote, I think that is the posters version of what he remembers.
If he actually told them to let him 'wiggle free' and gain more yards, my opinion of the intelligence of that game plan would be dramatically changed.

Let me go back and find the exact quote from the book "Education of a coach."

Give me a few min to find the specifics and I'll post the exact quotes, word for word.

These aren't "my versions of what I remember" as you say. These are direct, word for word quotes.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

Re: BB's gameplan defeated Manning

Another thing that's boggles the mind is the play that the Pats offense does on 3rd down. 3rd and a few yards and they chuck it down the field, usually without much success. I could understand a few times maybe, but it seems a bit too much for my liking.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Re: BB's gameplan defeated Manning

Another thing that's boggles the mind is the play that the Pats offense does on 3rd down. 3rd and a few yards and they chuck it down the field, usually without much success. I could understand a few times maybe, but it seems a bit too much for my liking.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...educates-tony-mazz-football-play-calling.html

 

[supafly]

Andy, if you look back to the original post about the Giants/Bills game, it actually WAS about giving them extra yardage:



That sounds to me like a nifty little con game where you let the mark win just enough to keep him playing. (Note that I'm not saying this Sunday's game followed the same approach.)

I could be wrong, but I don't think that is a quote, I think that is the posters version of what he remembers.
If he actually told them to let him 'wiggle free' and gain more yards, my opinion of the intelligence of that game plan would be dramatically changed.

Yes, there were some examples of Belichick specifically allowing them to run it:

(courtesy of David Halberstam's book " The Education of a coach")

p.172

--"So he decided to let BUF run it a bit, giving them a little more mileage on their runs than he usually did. He did not want Jim Kelly throwing on every down. The Bills were less dangerous, he thought, given the superb abilities of the NY defense, if they went to the running game, which also had the advantage of taking time off the clock. He thought the Giants could stop Thurman Thomas even though he was an exceptional back, if and when they needed to."

p. 173

--" Better he said, that Thurman Thomas gained 100 yards on the ground, and Kelly passed for 150, than Thomas be shut down completely, because then BUF, frustrated on the ground, would go to the air, and Kelly might pass for 350 yards. What Belichick really hoped was, in effect, to tease Kelly, to offer him the running game in critical moments and then take it away from him."

 

[supafly]

To take it even one step further. This is probably the most damning evidence available:

(again, courtesy of Halberstam's book "The Education of a coach")

p. 173


"Belichick asked them for a show of hands (in the defensive meeting)--who in the group wanted to be MVP of the SB? At first no hands went up. 'Don't be shy,' he said and gradually a great many hands went up--Pepper Johnson, always ebullient, put up both hands. 'Then let Thomas run' he told them.

 

[supafly]

Okay that's what I thought. Makes more sense.

The scenario has happened plenty of times before, and as good/great of a poster as Andy is--he isn't the end all/be all concrete judgement of everything either.

Andy may well be correct. I am sure that he is on some level. Even better, Andy may be more correct than my theory, and there may be a blending of both traits, but it has been something worth pondering, and certainly not just by me. I also posted Doug Kyed's article from NESN which gives a lot of hints to the same level of questioning.

The likelihood is that we dared them to run, and gave up the run--to stop the pass; which in essence, would mean that we are both correct on some level. The thought of purposely allowing them to run may sound crazy to you, but again...read Kyed's article from yesterday (I posted a link on page 2 of this thread), and also re-read the quotes from Halberstam's book which I posted in the previous posts.

 

[Lavictoire]

Felger discussed this and played a locker room quote from Talib admitting that was the game plan.

 

[aluminum seats]

This is interesting. I read the book, but didn't remember that part. My thought on Sunday's game was of course flood the secondary, and hope the run D holds up somewhat. You watch Jones & Vellano getting blown off the line, it hardly seems like a choice.

Interesting...and it seems to me, repeatable. The secondary will hopefully be healthier if there is a round two, after all.

 

[supafly]

Felger discussed this and played a locker room quote from Talib admitting that was the game plan.

Interesting. You don't by chance have a link or a quote do you? Even a hint at what story it was in would be great if you have a chance, thanks.

 

[Brady6]

It should be noted that in reviewing the game film, the Patriots refused to change their approach to try and combat the run. On 90/90 plays including overtime, Belichick chose to continue to stay in a nickle defense, at one time even substituting Hightower out for Dane Fletcher making our run defense even worse. As we know, this is not the first time that we've seen this.

In the book by David Halberstam called "Education of a coach," the topic is brought up regarding Belichick's defensive gameplan in SB 25 vs the Buffalo Bills and RB Thurman Thomas. As we all know, that NYG team had a great defensive line that prided themselves in stopping the run, and they reportedly wanted no part of Belichick's gameplan to allow Thurman Thomas to run. He literally had to talk them into it.

As they prepared for their final gameplan meeting, Belichick reiterated his plan to allow Thomas to run for over 100+ yards, telling players like Carl Banks, Lawrence Taylor etc to allow him to wiggle free for an extra couple of yards from time to time; noting that it would help to limit the throws from Jim Kelly and the high powered BUF offense. At one point the defensive players openly complained and moaned about this questionable gameplan, and Belichick asked them "who here wants to win the MVP?" As several hands shot up, he gave them a serious look and stated "then let Thomas run."

The result spoke for itself as Thomas ran for 135 yards, but the heavily favored and high powered Bills lost the game on a 46 yard FG attempt.

Does anyone feel that the same exact thing happened on Sunday night? In other words, judging by the fact that we stayed in nickle on 90/90 plays, we didn't attempt to try and do anything at all about the fact that they were gouging us vs the run. I honestly believe that we'd have attempted to combat this if it weren't part of the gameplan, and we weren't up against Peyton Manning and a very high powered offense.

The concern I'd have is that this isn't likely to work 2x this year, and if we meet them in the playoffs, we'll have to hope that our offense can match them blow for blow against that high powered attack of weapons.

The bottom line is that we once again are witnessing a very, very good span of coaching from arguably the greatest coach to ever exist. As stated in my signature on the weekend prior to week #1, this has the potential to be his greatest coaching season ever when we consider everything that happened in the off-season, and that was before the injuries, controversial calls, etc.

This is if not the best certainly one of the best posts on this board this season.

I agree completely I actually said a similar thing in MG’s thread about run defense that Belichick played Manning and took the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[supafly]

This is if not the best certainly one of the best posts on this board this season.

I agree completely I actually said a similar thing in MG’s thread about run defense that Belichick played Manning and took the lesser of 2 evils.

It's simply mixing in some speculation with the fact that he's proven to do it before in past games. It was something that I considered as it was happening, and then when I saw some other articles like NESN's Doug Kyed's piece, it became an even bigger question.

We really can't come to a solid enough conclusion (in my opinion) to definitely know (although another poster claimed that Talib basically admitted it this week), and I'd have to guess that it's a mixture of taking the lesser of 2 evils by giving up the run and protecting against/taking away the pass.

Now....whether or not he told them to allow some extra yardage to "bait" them as was done in SB 25 and some other games here in N.England probably can't be answered fully one way or another; but I did think that it was worth seeing what some others thought.

Thank you for the compliment though, it's much appreciated.

 

[AzPatsFan]

This is a great topic. Kudos to sup for going back into the history book to show the inspiration for the scheme that we saw on Sunday. Kudos to Andy for taking the next step and breaking down the scheme even further.

However like most things, they are not just black and white. BB did what BB does in every game. He tries to eliminate a teams strength and direct their offense into a predictable path of HIS choosing. It doesn't always work because of he might not have the talent to produce the scheme or poor execution might make the defense break down.

Now that I've had a few days to think about it, BB simply did what he had to do, in order to attempt to control the best high powered short to intermediate passing offense in the league this year. One that was producing at historic levels for most of the year..

Now I'm sure the plan wasn't to have the Bronco's run for over 260 yds. I'm sure BB would have been much happier with 160. This isn't a bad run defense. They showed it vs an excellent Panther running attack, holding the RB's to under 50 yds for the game. So we know that the Pats CAN defend the run when its a priority. And I'm sure he will work this week to improve the execution.

But that being said, it is clear that the goal of the defense was to stop a passing game that hadn't been stopped this season....and they accomplished it in spades. They did it by squeezing the mid and underneath areas of the field with often 5 defender, either playing combination zones or man to man. They did it by daring Manning to throw it deep, but also letting him know he'd be throwing deep into 2 deep safety coverage. Not generally a wise thing to do.

So Manning was left with one of 3 options. Throw into those 2 deep safeties. Try to squeeze the ball into the 5 across underneath coverage, or run into what often amounted to a 6 man box. The wind certainly helped the Pats plan when the Bronco's had to play into it. But it wasn't the main reason the defense was so effective.

Even in Manning's best drive of the night (the game tying drive) he had to make 3 literally PERFECT throws and had 2 great catches. plus 2 penalties in order to score. Execution had to be perfect, and that puts a lot of pressure on an offense. Pressure that this offense hadn't seen this year.

BTW- this defense was very similar to what Rex Ryan did to the Pats in that AFC playoff game in the 2010 season (also known as the 2nd biggest win in Jets franchise history. ) It can be very effective if you aren't ready for it.....and that's a problem.

The Pats have shown the rest of the league a solid blueprint in attacking the prolific Denver offense. Teams with more talented front 7's will control the run better (in the 130-160 range). But the bad part is that Denver is going to be much more prepared for this scheme after they have seen it a few times. Don't forget that in the 4 games AFTER that playoff loss, the Pats never failed to score at least 30 points against Rex, and that streak continued until this year when we had those obvious offensive problems of no Gronk, Amendola, and new rookie WR's

So should we meet again, I'm sure the Pats will do something similar to try and stifle that great short, move the chains passing game the Broncos have. I'm sure the Pats will have a few tricks up their sleeves to do better with the run game. However I expect the Broncos will do better as well now that they know what to expect and should see it a few more times the rest of the season.

What the Pats will do the "next time vs Denver" is going to be a great football discussion in January. I look forward to it. I'm already game planning.

I was just about ready to post the obvious Belichick strategy that he uses. "Take away their best player and what he does best".

How many times have we had this proclaimed over the years?

BB had a beat up secondary to face the awesome Bronco passing Offense. So he reinforced the pass defense, taking away Peyton Manning and daring Moreno to beat the Pats. Moreno couldn't. Combine that with Belichick's preferred defensive game plan of BBDB.

BB for Coach of the Year ! :snob:

 

[Fencer]

OK, I just read the article and learned that the Wide Right attempt was in fact out of Norwood's usual range; he hadn't made a FG that long all year. (47 yards.) I guess that makes the win more legit.

 

[Ring 6]

To take it even one step further. This is probably the most damning evidence available:

(again, courtesy of Halberstam's book "The Education of a coach")

p. 173


"Belichick asked them for a show of hands (in the defensive meeting)--who in the group wanted to be MVP of the SB? At first no hands went up. 'Don't be shy,' he said and gradually a great many hands went up--Pepper Johnson, always ebullient, put up both hands. 'Then let Thomas run' he told them.

So we are in agreement that your memory was off and BB did not tell them to let him get extra yards right?

The gameplan was to play a defense that devoted extra resources to the pass and fewer to the run. The scheme and calls made it harder for them to stop the run. The plan wasn't to fail on purpose or not tackle.
The spirit of the comments were that the Giants were dominant vs the run that year, and when the gameplan was installed, it included schemes that would make it harder to defend the run, and encourage the Bills to run the ball. It was never "Hey we could stop him for 2, but I would rather you miss the tackle on purpose and give him 8".

 

[Ring 6]

Let me go back and find the exact quote from the book "Education of a coach."

Give me a few min to find the specifics and I'll post the exact quotes, word for word.

These aren't "my versions of what I remember" as you say. These are direct, word for word quotes.

Just to clarify the part about BB telling them to let Thomas wiggle free is, in fact, your inaccuarate memory of the story, and not a direct quote right?

Not trying to bust your balls just trying to make sure we are clear, because here you are saying it is a direct quote but it is not in the direct quotes you posted.

 

[Ring 6]

It's simply mixing in some speculation with the fact that he's proven to do it before in past games. It was something that I considered as it was happening, and then when I saw some other articles like NESN's Doug Kyed's piece, it became an even bigger question.

We really can't come to a solid enough conclusion (in my opinion) to definitely know (although another poster claimed that Talib basically admitted it this week), and I'd have to guess that it's a mixture of taking the lesser of 2 evils by giving up the run and protecting against/taking away the pass.

Now....whether or not he told them to allow some extra yardage to "bait" them as was done in SB 25 and some other games here in N.England probably can't be answered fully one way or another; but I did think that it was worth seeing what some others thought.

Thank you for the compliment though, it's much appreciated.

Kyed's piece says nothing at all, or eve makes an implication that they gave them extra yards to bait them. There is no evidence of BB ever employing such an awful strategy.

Yes, he dared them to run. Yes, he put his run defenders in a difficult position to stop it. No, he did not tell them to not try and stop the run. He overcommited to the pass and put extra pressure on his run defenders, and they did the best they could but were overmatched, which, in the big picture was a smart plan.

 

[supafly]

Yes, there were some examples of Belichick specifically allowing them to run it:

(courtesy of David Halberstam's book " The Education of a coach")

p.172

--"So he decided to let BUF run it a bit, giving them a little more mileage on their runs than he usually did. He did not want Jim Kelly throwing on every down. The Bills were less dangerous, he thought, given the superb abilities of the NY defense, if they went to the running game, which also had the advantage of taking time off the clock. He thought the Giants could stop Thurman Thomas even though he was an exceptional back, if and when they needed to."

Just to clarify the part about BB telling them to let Thomas wiggle free is, in fact, your inaccuarate memory of the story, and not a direct quote right?

Not trying to bust your balls just trying to make sure we are clear, because here you are saying it is a direct quote but it is not in the direct quotes you posted.

Unless you don't consider "giving them a little more mileage than he usually did" as not equating to "wiggle room" then...NO--we're not in agreement at all.

 

[supafly]

Yes, there were some examples of Belichick specifically allowing them to run it:

(courtesy of David Halberstam's book " The Education of a coach")

p.172

--"So he decided to let BUF run it a bit, giving them a little more mileage on their runs than he usually did. He did not want Jim Kelly throwing on every down. The Bills were less dangerous, he thought, given the superb abilities of the NY defense, if they went to the running game, which also had the advantage of taking time off the clock. He thought the Giants could stop Thurman Thomas even though he was an exceptional back, if and when they needed to."

p. 173

--" Better he said, that Thurman Thomas gained 100 yards on the ground, and Kelly passed for 150, than Thomas be shut down completely, because then BUF, frustrated on the ground, would go to the air, and Kelly might pass for 350 yards. What Belichick really hoped was, in effect, to tease Kelly, to offer him the running game in critical moments and then take it away from him."

To take it even one step further. This is probably the most damning evidence available:

(again, courtesy of Halberstam's book "The Education of a coach")

p. 173


"Belichick asked them for a show of hands (in the defensive meeting)--who in the group wanted to be MVP of the SB? At first no hands went up. 'Don't be shy,' he said and gradually a great many hands went up--Pepper Johnson, always ebullient, put up both hands. 'Then let Thomas run' he told them.

Kyed's piece says nothing at all, or eve makes an implication that they gave them extra yards to bait them. There is no evidence of BB ever employing such an awful strategy.

Yes, he dared them to run. Yes, he put his run defenders in a difficult position to stop it. No, he did not tell them to not try and stop the run. He overcommited to the pass and put extra pressure on his run defenders, and they did the best they could but were overmatched, which, in the big picture was a smart plan.

There are obvious "hints" and flat out quotes that certainly suggest that this so called awful game plan definitely took place, and it took place in Belichick's biggest game of his career to date; which is also why he was the one who was carted off the field on his players' shoulders as the hero.

You may find it "awful" but it certainly happened. The word "bait" is even used.

He told his defense to "let him run...." That is a direct quote. You are just pretending that it did not happen.

-------------------------------------

And how can you claim that Kyed's article doesn't "even give a hint of this strategy?" Are you reading a totally different article or something? This is an exact quote:

The Broncos’ running backs kept slicing through the Patriots’ defense and Bill Belichick did nothing to stop it. A little suspect, eh?




Basically, Belichick was encouraging the Broncos to keep running the ball at a 5.8-yard-per-carry clip.


The name of the article was "Patriots did not show much interest in stopping Denver's run."


If you don't see any hints here, then I don't really know what to tell you....you don't need to stray any further from these comments and the TITLE of the article!!!!

Read more at: http://nesn.com/2013/11/patriots-di...game-and-other-observations-from-film-review/

 

[supafly]

Not to mention that the poster named Levictiore also claimed that Aqib Talib came out and admitted that this was certainly part of the gameplan...

Again, we don't know as to what extent this was used, but allowing them to run was certainly part of the entire gameplan, as many have already claimed to have figured out themselves.

My question was to whether or not anyone believed that the great game plan from SB 25 vs Jim Kelly and the high powered BUF offense was also taking place here on any level.

 

[Lavictoire]

Interesting. You don't by chance have a link or a quote do you? Even a hint at what story it was in would be great if you have a chance, thanks.

They have the written quote on Patriots.com but edited it out of the audio clip:

"(On whether he expected the Broncos to run the ball as much as they did)"

“Definitely, man. Peyton [Manning is] a smart quarterback, man. We knew we were going to come out and show that two-high shell. He sees that two-high shell, he's going to run the ball. That was our plan, to get him to run it more than he throws it.”

Patriots Postgame Quotes - 11/24/2013


Here is an article on this subject:
How Bill Belichick made Peyton Manning beat Peyton Manning | nePatriotsLife.com - New England Patriots Fan Site, Blog, T-shirts